Resources

Facts The claimant and defendant had previously been parties to a waste management contract. Following a dispute, the claimant had been awarded a principal sum of approximately £9 million, which was subsequently paid by the defendant. An additional sum of approximately £90,000 was also identified and paid by the defendant at a later date. The present judgment concerned whether interest should be calculated from the date of judgment, or an earlier date specified by the claimant, and also whether the interest should be compound. The claimant argued for interest from the end of each contract year, compounded at 2% above the Bank of England base rate, as per the agreement. The defendant accepted the prescribed rate but disputed the start date and the compounding of interest.DecisionThe Judge decided that the claimant was entitled to simple interest at the prescribed rate from the due date. The agreement did not provide for compound interest and the claimant was therefore not entitled to claim it. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that interest should only accrue from the date of judgment because there was no contractual obligation before this point. The Judge found this…

The Court interpreted the provisions of an amended JCT Design and Build Contract 2016 with particular focus on the scope of a contractor's responsibility for additional and unforeseen works on site, and the legitimacy of suspension and termination notices.Facts The claimant (BNP) engaged the defendant (B&F) to design and construct stair pressurisation works in a 30-storey office tower. These works would include removing the existing system and installing an improved system. The contract was an amended 2016 JCT Design and Build contract. Works were complicated due to the presence of asbestos in the building. An issue arose between the parties as to the extent of the asbestos removal works, and whether B&F was obligation to carry out additional  surveys and the asbestos removal works  that were subsequently required, as well as additional structural works that had not initially been foreseen as part of its original scope of work.When further asbestos was discovered, the works were halted, and B&F issued a suspension and then termination notice. BNP treated this as repudiatory breach and sought declarations that B&F was not entitled to serve either the suspension or…

David Thomas KC has successfully argued before the Privy Council that the decision of the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago in EMBD v Junior Sammy Contractors should be upheld.